The story has been tinkered with - extra characters, plus the updating data processing contrivances in Holmes's rooms and the automobile - in a story that originally had a Victorian setting - and where Holmes lived with Watson and worked in a modest suite of rooms - hardly the grandeur we see here. There also seems to be some gaps in the film - particularly the scene between Holmes and Rylott at Baker St. The overall acting style owes a great deal to the silent era. Athole Stewart makes a passable silly Watson. Raymond Massey sleepwalks through his few scenes as Holmes - without personality. Even Reginald Owens' off-the-mark Holmes was far superior. Lyn Harding is great as the raging, villainous Dr. Rylott (Roylott in the Holmes story) - he made an equally wonderful - probably the best - Moriarity in the films with Arthur Wontner as Holmes. Angela Baddeley made a nicely terrified possible victim - in a silent film sort of way. Rylott Hall was nicely quaint and moodily lit. And the gypsies were well done. Overall, the film works well, but is no must-see, save for Holmes fanatics.

A clean transcript and subtitles in many formats are available here:

https://archive.org/details/SpeckledBandSubtitles

The most interesting thing to me about this movie is that it was Angela Baddeley's first film role. She became best known, much older, in the original Upstairs, Downstairs television series as Mrs. Bridges, the cook. I'm going to give it four stars for that.

I agree with the foolishness of the lame attempt to update Sherlock's resources with the "modern' front office. However, there have been subsequent films that did just that.

The sound is muddled, but discernible. The whole film runs in under an hour, so it's not a bad watch. Two-and-a-half stars.

Not for me is this a must watch, though I've read all of Conan Doyle's Holmes stories and novels, watched Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce when I was a child (and remembered their names for years thereafter), and recorded as many of the Granada Television episodes with Jeremy Brett as I could get. For one thing, the cast just doesn't work for me, especially with Athole Stewart as Dr. Watson. Having Holmes' "rooms" in Baker St. turned into a business office with modern data processing equipment (was that a punched card tabulating machine we are first shown?) put me off entirely. What's more, the print is of such poor quality, with blurry picture and mushy sound, that it is too difficult to see and hear what is taking place. Not really worth the effort, considering everything else.

This veers away from the original story by Conan Doyle, and there's an oddball surrealism with having a front office at 221 Baker Street. Still, it's a must-watch for Sherlock Holmes fans.

BTW, the street address would not be 221B Baker St. It would be 221 Baker St. The 'B' referres to the apartments that Holmes and Watson lived in within 221 Baker St.

...sort of like having a headache and taking a pill. If you wait long enough, the pain goes away. Actually turned out to be a fun movie. Early sound, not the clearest video, but for Holmes fans, a worthwhile watch.

Although it was one of the Holmes stories filmed with sound, it was more of a interplation of it.
The gist of the story was there but the elements of the 1930's technologyThe dictaphone, data processor,and answering intercom, and motorcar)were placed in the victorian era(gaslights horse driven carts) making the story I suppose easier for 1930's audiences to related to. I give 4 stars for the historical aspect of film with sound, 4 stars for the acting(eventhough gestures at times were of the silent era) and three stars for the so-so interp. of Doyle's story.